What's everbody's thoughts on disciplining your wives with spankings? I'm all for it. It seems like a great ideal between consenting adults, and I don't think I'll ever be dating another girl who doesn't consent to me disciplining them physically on a regular basis.

At 5/3/2015 6:05:35 AM, Wylted wrote:What's everbody's thoughts on disciplining your wives with spankings? I'm all for it. It seems like a great ideal between consenting adults, and I don't think I'll ever be dating another girl who doesn't consent to me disciplining them physically on a regular basis.

I suppose you are trying to be funny, but domestic abuse is certainly no laughing matter!

At 5/3/2015 6:05:35 AM, Wylted wrote:What's everbody's thoughts on disciplining your wives with spankings? I'm all for it. It seems like a great ideal between consenting adults, and I don't think I'll ever be dating another girl who doesn't consent to me disciplining them physically on a regular basis.

I suppose you are trying to be funny, but domestic abuse is certainly no laughing matter!

Actually I'm talking about what goes on between two consenting adults.

At 5/3/2015 6:05:35 AM, Wylted wrote:What's everbody's thoughts on disciplining your wives with spankings? I'm all for it. It seems like a great ideal between consenting adults, and I don't think I'll ever be dating another girl who doesn't consent to me disciplining them physically on a regular basis.

I suppose you are trying to be funny, but domestic abuse is certainly no laughing matter!

Actually I'm talking about what goes on between two consenting adults.

At 5/3/2015 6:38:21 AM, JJ50 wrote:What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

I agree, JJ. Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

It would be fair to raise the question of religiously-enforced female subservience theologically, however I think it's neither wise nor illuminating to conflate it with consenting sex.

At 5/3/2015 6:38:21 AM, JJ50 wrote:What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

I agree, JJ. Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

It would be fair to raise the question of religiously-enforced female subservience theologically, however I think it's neither wise nor illuminating to conflate it with consenting sex.

A man who believes his female partner should be subservient to him because it was expected in that not so good book, is a deviant, imo!

At 5/3/2015 6:38:21 AM, JJ50 wrote:What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

I agree, JJ. Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

It would be fair to raise the question of religiously-enforced female subservience theologically, however I think it's neither wise nor illuminating to conflate it with consenting sex.

A man who believes his female partner should be subservient to him because it was expected in that not so good book, is a deviant, imo!

Muslim women don't happen to have a problem with a little disciplining by their husbands. In fact divorce rates are the lowest among Muslim couples and there are more married Muslim women than in any other religion, race or culture.

At 5/3/2015 6:38:21 AM, JJ50 wrote:What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

I agree, JJ. Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

It would be fair to raise the question of religiously-enforced female subservience theologically, however I think it's neither wise nor illuminating to conflate it with consenting sex.

A man who believes his female partner should be subservient to him because it was expected in that not so good book, is a deviant, imo!

Muslim women don't happen to have a problem with a little disciplining by their husbands. In fact divorce rates are the lowest among Muslim couples and there are more married Muslim women than in any other religion, race or culture.

Well they should have a major problem with it. They are probably too scared to divorce the male scum who abuse them!

At 5/3/2015 6:38:21 AM, JJ50 wrote:What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

I agree, JJ. Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

It would be fair to raise the question of religiously-enforced female subservience theologically, however I think it's neither wise nor illuminating to conflate it with consenting sex.

A man who believes his female partner should be subservient to him because it was expected in that not so good book, is a deviant, imo!

Muslim women don't happen to have a problem with a little disciplining by their husbands. In fact divorce rates are the lowest among Muslim couples and there are more married Muslim women than in any other religion, race or culture.

Well they should have a major problem with it. They are probably too scared to divorce the male scum who abuse them!

You see it as abuse. They feel it as love. Obviously women don't agree on issues of the heart and other domestic roles.

I am Christian (though not a religious Christian), and I believe that one of the most damaging and dangerous concepts of religious Christianity is the idea that one human being (namely, the "believer") has the right or the responsibility to discipline any other human being not his or her own child. Because tied up in that presumption is the presumption to judge other human beings according to one's own moral imperatives, to condemn those other human beings through that judgment, and then to punish those other human beings for not living up to one's own presumed moral and ideological standards.

This is the very definition religious bigotry and abuse, and there is a long and very sordid history of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity to bear that out.

Whether it's a husband beating his wife as if she were his child, or the village elders burning the local "witch" at the stake, it's all the same violence being justified by self-righteous religiosity running amok. Which is why no true Christian should ever allow themselves to engage in any such presumption of their own superior righteousness.

Ever.

And yet, sadly, this presumption of superior righteousness is commonplace among religious Christians. Which is one big reason (among others) that I am not a religious Christian.

At 5/3/2015 9:05:12 AM, PureX wrote:I am Christian (though not a religious Christian), and I believe that one of the most damaging and dangerous concepts of religious Christianity is the idea that one human being (namely, the "believer") has the right or the responsibility to discipline any other human being not his or her own child. Because tied up in that presumption is the presumption to judge other human beings according to one's own moral imperatives, to condemn those other human beings through that judgment, and then to punish those other human beings for not living up to one's own presumed moral and ideological standards.

This is the very definition religious bigotry and abuse, and there is a long and very sordid history of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity to bear that out.

Whether it's a husband beating his wife as if she were his child, or the village elders burning the local "witch" at the stake, it's all the same violence being justified by self-righteous religiosity running amok. Which is why no true Christian should ever allow themselves to engage in any such presumption of their own superior righteousness.

Ever.

And yet, sadly, this presumption of superior righteousness is commonplace among religious Christians. Which is one big reason (among others) that I am not a religious Christian.

And if you are put off by domestic violence in Christian homes look what the Jews did to their messiah. Christians will not let a dead man rest. They continue to hang Jesus in their living rooms.

At 5/3/2015 9:05:12 AM, PureX wrote:Whether it's a husband beating his wife as if she were his child, or the village elders burning the local "witch" at the stake, it's all the same violence being justified by self-righteous religiosity running amok. Which is why no true Christian should ever allow themselves to engage in any such presumption of their own superior righteousness.Ever.

Thank you for posting this, PureX. I know other Christians feel as you do, but not enough.

If Christianity could remember this, instead of repeatedly forgetting it, the Christian faith would be the gift Christians want it to be.

And all Christian/secular tensions, and many Christian/interfaith tensions would vanish overnight, I suspect.

At 5/3/2015 6:05:35 AM, Wylted wrote:What's everbody's thoughts on disciplining your wives with spankings? I'm all for it. It seems like a great ideal between consenting adults, and I don't think I'll ever be dating another girl who doesn't consent to me disciplining them physically on a regular basis.

I suppose you are trying to be funny, but domestic abuse is certainly no laughing matter!

"Consensual sadomasochism should not be confounded with acts of sexual aggression. Moreover, while sadomasochists seek out pain and humiliation in the context of love and sex, they do not do so in other situations and dislike simple, unfettered violence or abuse as much as the next person. In short, and in general, sadomasochists are not psychopaths. While psychopathy, or antisocial personality disorder, is a diagnosable mental disorder, sadomasochism is not diagnosable unless it causes significant distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others.

Most obviously, the sadist may derive pleasure from feelings of power, authority, and control, and from the "suffering" of the masochist.

The sadist may also harbour an unconscious desire to punish the object of sexual attraction for having aroused his desire and thereby subjugated him, or, in some cases, for having frustrated his desire or aroused his jealousy.

By objectifying his partner, who is thereby rendered subhuman, the sadist does not need to handle the partner"s emotional baggage, and can deceive himself that the sex is not all that meaningful: a mere act of lust rather than an intimate and pregnant act of love. The partner becomes a trophy, a mere plaything, and while one can own a toy and perhaps knock it about, one cannot fall in love with it or be hurt or betrayed by it."

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 5/3/2015 6:05:35 AM, Wylted wrote:What's everbody's thoughts on disciplining your wives with spankings? I'm all for it. It seems like a great ideal between consenting adults, and I don't think I'll ever be dating another girl who doesn't consent to me disciplining them physically on a regular basis.

I suppose you are trying to be funny, but domestic abuse is certainly no laughing matter!

Actually I'm talking about what goes on between two consenting adults.

What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

Not really sadomasichism. The Bible teaches that women should be submissive to men, and this helps. I'd say that the S&M fetish is different from this. Some people secretly into S&M may be fulfilling their kinks by doing this, but I think for the most part this is something that women who want to be submissive to their husband choose to do.

At 5/3/2015 6:38:21 AM, JJ50 wrote:What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

I agree, JJ. Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

It would be fair to raise the question of religiously-enforced female subservience theologically, however I think it's neither wise nor illuminating to conflate it with consenting sex.

No Christian Domestic Discipline is always consenting. If it wasn't than that wouldn't be CDD, that would be abuse. Many Christian men and women both believe that the woman should be submissive in a relationship and this is something done by consenting people, if a woman feels like she can trust her husband enough and needs extra incentive to be a good girl.

At 5/3/2015 6:38:21 AM, JJ50 wrote:What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

I agree, JJ. Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

It would be fair to raise the question of religiously-enforced female subservience theologically, however I think it's neither wise nor illuminating to conflate it with consenting sex.

A man who believes his female partner should be subservient to him because it was expected in that not so good book, is a deviant, imo!

It's also just a matter of fact that relationships work better if the man is in charge. The woman is typically happier, feels more protected and is typically more sexually satisfied in these settings.

At 5/3/2015 6:38:21 AM, JJ50 wrote:What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

I agree, JJ. Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

It would be fair to raise the question of religiously-enforced female subservience theologically, however I think it's neither wise nor illuminating to conflate it with consenting sex.

A man who believes his female partner should be subservient to him because it was expected in that not so good book, is a deviant, imo!

Muslim women don't happen to have a problem with a little disciplining by their husbands. In fact divorce rates are the lowest among Muslim couples and there are more married Muslim women than in any other religion, race or culture.

Thank you. I think the difference in most Western countries is that society is trying to mentally castrate the men, which not only makes men more unhappy, but women more unhappy as well.

At 5/3/2015 6:38:21 AM, JJ50 wrote:What does sadomasochism have to do with the topic of religion?

I agree, JJ. Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

It would be fair to raise the question of religiously-enforced female subservience theologically, however I think it's neither wise nor illuminating to conflate it with consenting sex.

A man who believes his female partner should be subservient to him because it was expected in that not so good book, is a deviant, imo!

Muslim women don't happen to have a problem with a little disciplining by their husbands. In fact divorce rates are the lowest among Muslim couples and there are more married Muslim women than in any other religion, race or culture.

Well they should have a major problem with it. They are probably too scared to divorce the male scum who abuse them!

Why would you assume a woman who submits to her man for some light physical punishment would be afraid to leave? If anything she'd trust him so much that there is no way she's be afraid to leave. Why would she submit if she was afraid to leave?

At 5/3/2015 9:05:12 AM, PureX wrote:I am Christian (though not a religious Christian), and I believe that one of the most damaging and dangerous concepts of religious Christianity is the idea that one human being (namely, the "believer") has the right or the responsibility to discipline any other human being not his or her own child. Because tied up in that presumption is the presumption to judge other human beings according to one's own moral imperatives, to condemn those other human beings through that judgment, and then to punish those other human beings for not living up to one's own presumed moral and ideological standards.

This is the very definition religious bigotry and abuse, and there is a long and very sordid history of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity to bear that out.

Whether it's a husband beating his wife as if she were his child, or the village elders burning the local "witch" at the stake, it's all the same violence being justified by self-righteous religiosity running amok. Which is why no true Christian should ever allow themselves to engage in any such presumption of their own superior righteousness.

Ever.

And yet, sadly, this presumption of superior righteousness is commonplace among religious Christians. Which is one big reason (among others) that I am not a religious Christian.

If you're a Christian you should know the bible teaches a woman to be submissive to her husband, and while that can be done without the use of CDD, what's wrong with a woman choosing the CDD lifestyle. This is something not done without the consent of both parties.

At 5/3/2015 7:09:51 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

No Christian Domestic Discipline is always consenting. If it wasn't than that wouldn't be CDD, that would be abuse. Many Christian men and women both believe that the woman should be submissive in a relationship and this is something done by consenting people, if a woman feels like she can trust her husband enough and needs extra incentive to be a good girl.

What happens to daughters born to such relationships? Are they raised without Christianity, or according to a different creed than the mother believes?

That's a rhetorical question for your contemplation, Wylted, since we both know that neither of those things is true.

I posed it to illustrate the difference between picking whatever private sexual expression suits the couple, and making a moral philosophy out of such expression and teaching it to your kids.

At 5/3/2015 9:05:12 AM, PureX wrote:I am Christian (though not a religious Christian), and I believe that one of the most damaging and dangerous concepts of religious Christianity is the idea that one human being (namely, the "believer") has the right or the responsibility to discipline any other human being not his or her own child. Because tied up in that presumption is the presumption to judge other human beings according to one's own moral imperatives, to condemn those other human beings through that judgment, and then to punish those other human beings for not living up to one's own presumed moral and ideological standards.

This is the very definition religious bigotry and abuse, and there is a long and very sordid history of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity to bear that out.

Whether it's a husband beating his wife as if she were his child, or the village elders burning the local "witch" at the stake, it's all the same violence being justified by self-righteous religiosity running amok. Which is why no true Christian should ever allow themselves to engage in any such presumption of their own superior righteousness.

Ever.

And yet, sadly, this presumption of superior righteousness is commonplace among religious Christians. Which is one big reason (among others) that I am not a religious Christian.

And if you are put off by domestic violence in Christian homes look what the Jews did to their messiah. Christians will not let a dead man rest. They continue to hang Jesus in their living rooms.

Lol, so true. I think that they are so conditioned to the image of the crucified Jesus, that they don't realize how sick it is to put a bleeding, beaten, dying man on display for their children or themselves is. They also don't realize it is idolatry.

At 5/3/2015 7:09:51 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

No Christian Domestic Discipline is always consenting. If it wasn't than that wouldn't be CDD, that would be abuse. Many Christian men and women both believe that the woman should be submissive in a relationship and this is something done by consenting people, if a woman feels like she can trust her husband enough and needs extra incentive to be a good girl.

What happens to daughters born to such relationships? Are they raised without Christianity, or according to a different creed than the mother believes?

That's a rhetorical question for your contemplation, Wylted, since we both know that neither of those things is true.

I posed it to illustrate the difference between picking whatever private sexual expression suits the couple, and making a moral philosophy out of such expression and teaching it to your kids.

I think that disciplining your wife should be done out of site, but there is certainly nothing wrong with teaching a girl that women should be submissive to their husbands. I think that belief system itself would do a lot to insure that your daughter would only pick the best of men to be with. I'd much rather my daughter be submissive to a great man than be equal with an average or superior to a sub par man.

At 5/3/2015 6:05:35 AM, Wylted wrote:What's everbody's thoughts on disciplining your wives with spankings? I'm all for it. It seems like a great ideal between consenting adults, and I don't think I'll ever be dating another girl who doesn't consent to me disciplining them physically on a regular basis.

At 5/3/2015 7:09:51 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

No Christian Domestic Discipline is always consenting. If it wasn't than that wouldn't be CDD, that would be abuse. Many Christian men and women both believe that the woman should be submissive in a relationship and this is something done by consenting people, if a woman feels like she can trust her husband enough and needs extra incentive to be a good girl.

What happens to daughters born to such relationships? Are they raised without Christianity, or according to a different creed than the mother believes?That's a rhetorical question for your contemplation, Wylted, since we both know that neither of those things is true.I posed it to illustrate the difference between picking whatever private sexual expression suits the couple, and making a moral philosophy out of such expression and teaching it to your kids.

I think that disciplining your wife should be done out of site, but there is certainly nothing wrong with teaching a girl that women should be submissive to their husbands. I think that belief system itself would do a lot to insure that your daughter would only pick the best of men to be with.

If you think that's so, then please provide some independent stats to support it. We have a great deal of stats on domestic violence, and most of them speak to the dangers of women with low self-esteem putting up with bullying, abuse, cruelty and neglect longer than they ought.

I'd much rather my daughter be submissive to a great man than be equal with an average or superior to a sub par man.

This is a fallacy called 'appeal to consequences'. If submissive women got better husbands then that might be desirable. Yet because you think it's desirable, you've assumed that they do.

Perhaps you've conflated the objective evidence (which tends to show how submissive women get exploited by ruthless men) with subjective experience: that having a woman treat you like a two year-old prince makes you feel a better man than you might actually be.

At 5/3/2015 6:05:35 AM, Wylted wrote:What's everbody's thoughts on disciplining your wives with spankings? I'm all for it. It seems like a great ideal between consenting adults, and I don't think I'll ever be dating another girl who doesn't consent to me disciplining them physically on a regular basis.

At 5/3/2015 7:09:51 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Although I suspect it was meant to be a mischievous attempt to shock and bait religious sensibility, I think there's a vast difference between consenting sexuality and discussing traditional male preserves to beat wives and children, force wives to have sex with them, and prohibit wives from taking independent decisions.

No Christian Domestic Discipline is always consenting. If it wasn't than that wouldn't be CDD, that would be abuse. Many Christian men and women both believe that the woman should be submissive in a relationship and this is something done by consenting people, if a woman feels like she can trust her husband enough and needs extra incentive to be a good girl.

What happens to daughters born to such relationships? Are they raised without Christianity, or according to a different creed than the mother believes?

That's a rhetorical question for your contemplation, Wylted, since we both know that neither of those things is true.

I posed it to illustrate the difference between picking whatever private sexual expression suits the couple, and making a moral philosophy out of such expression and teaching it to your kids.

I think that disciplining your wife should be done out of site, but there is certainly nothing wrong with teaching a girl that women should be submissive to their husbands. I think that belief system itself would do a lot to insure that your daughter would only pick the best of men to be with. I'd much rather my daughter be submissive to a great man than be equal with an average or superior to a sub par man.

You will be surprised what lengths women go to prove they are superior to men. For example I was told. In porn movies a woman can be seen with a bunch of men. She is having all her body cavities plugged by them and both her hand are busy stroking male parts. It was revealed she was paid more than all the male performers combined.She had a picture of God on the wall and went under a Christian name.This might be a private matter. But it shows women can take a lot more abuse than they are subjected to. And they can be seen enjoying being abused by several men.I don't know what men would gang up on a woman like that or who should watch such depraved treatment of women. But just the thought of it made Christian domestic discipline all the more necessary.One can understand why Muslim women keep their faces and bodies covered in public and only encourage a little domestic abuse at home. Public stoning is quite a deterrent.

If you're a Christian you should know the bible teaches a woman to be submissive to her husband, and while that can be done without the use of CDD, what's wrong with a woman choosing the CDD lifestyle. This is something not done without the consent of both parties.

Not being a two thousand year old Jew, what the bible teaches regarding spousal relations is of little use or concern to me. What is of concern to me is the ideal of love and forgiveness acting in us and through us to others, healing us and saving us from ourselves. The ideal of Christ, as exemplified by Jesus. And if a man cannot advance that ideal toward his own wife, how can he hope to do so toward anyone else?